beta
Text
The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above cancellation is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, a company running non-life insurance business, such as automobile insurance, is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract for C vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”), and the Defendant is the owner and the rental business operator of E- Apartments, a publicly constructed rental house located in D at the same time.
B. From around 18:00 on April 10, 2018 to around 07:30 on the following day, there was an accident where the front corridor of the instant apartment house F (limited to the instant apartment common area) is far away from the glass, and the lower part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked on the parking lot was damaged (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. On June 1, 2018, the Plaintiff paid 651,900 won, deducting 200,000 won from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, as insurance proceeds.
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry or video of Gap evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The accident of this case occurred due to negligence in management by the defendant, who is the manager of the common area of the apartment of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Code.
B. In addition, the accident in this case occurred due to the defect in the installation and preservation of the corridor glass window, which is the common area of the apartment in this case, and the defendant is the possessor of the above common area, and also the above accident under the main sentence of Article 758 (1) of the
shall be liable for damages such as prescribed in paragraph (1).
C. Even if the defendant is not in the position of the manager or possessor of the common area of the apartment of this case, the defendant is in the position of objectively directing and supervising the manager of the common area of this case. Thus, the defendant is in accordance with Article 756(1)
shall be liable for such damages as provided for in subsection (d).
Therefore, the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is equivalent to the repair cost due to the instant accident.